See, right there. Without the Snowden's revelations, you would be just considered a "conspiracy nutjob". We didn't know how deeply Orwellian stuff was happening behind the scenes, most of people couldn't believe it.

I never said "most", but the truth was freely shared. There were public stories from AT&T employees and others that revealed as much as Snowden.

But for whatever reason, an eye witness is ignored, while an email is gold. I'm seriously suggesting that most people knew that others "suspected" the NSA directly intercepted things they "shouldn't". But, despite the evidence supporting those relations, they refused to believe.

It wasn't an accusation of JFK being assassinated by Martians, but that a spy ag

I've known for sure since ~2003, when I overheard the owner of one minor ISP discussing the issue with the owner of another minor ISP, about how he'd been forced to tack a federal monitoring box onto his system. If it had trickled down to little hole-in-the-wall ISPs whose customers number in the mere hundreds, you can bet it was already well-established with the big providers.

Back about 1997ish, word around was that the FBI had tried to get Earthlink to do the same with its email system, and Earthlink refu

No. We knew it was a possibility, but we didn't know what was actually going on and so the gov't and press could dismiss techies as paranoid. More importantly, no one was talking about it, which is the really good thing to come out of all this.

Yeah, the ostriches finally heard, even with their head in the sand. There was still "proof" in the '90s. And those of us who listen have known for 20 years. Anyone claiming surprise is declaring their stupidity.

This stuff was going on in the 80s. But in those days it was phone tapping. There were computerised phone tapping systems by at least 1984. The police's system in London (UK) crashed during the miner's strike because everyone was talking about pickets.

Snowden's revelations are old news. We knew this stuff was going on in the mid-90's.

Let's note how this statement would have been modded and responded to back when these revealtions were first publicized...

Put the question in the context where acknowledging that Snowden's info was common knowledge among tech industry professionals in that area makes the respondent able to use their answer to demonstrate their own technical prowess...well...

You are right. Before Snowden, no one "knew" it was happening because there was no proof. Yes, many suspected it, and were probably accused of propagating conspiracy theories, but the proof was finally given with Snowden.Although I am disappointed in the leaks regarding foreign nations. That IS NSA's mandate and they are supposed to spy on foreign nations (yes, both friendly and not friendly). That didn't have any business being leaked...but I realize journalists will release everything he gave, not just what is good for US citizens to know about.

You're mistaken. I am well aware that these scumbags think no one has any rights, and it's people like you who cheer them on. Innocent people in foreign countries also have inalienable rights, and shouldn't be spied on.

I don't give a fuck what the NSA's mission is, or how many countries conduct these immoral activities; it's immoral. The end.

Shilling? Shilling for who? People who want the government to respect people's individual liberties?

Hardly haphazard, and the US data gathered was not analyzed unless a search warrant was granted.

You think that collecting this data is any less exploitable, or any more constitutional? Even if we take them at their word and they don't actually look at the data (Foolish considering the hundreds of millions of people throughout history abused at the hands of governments - including the US government - that you people like to ignore.), collecting it is still a violation of people's rights.

So what does the Left want? Should the US Government try to "police the world" and treat all people as US Citizens, or not? Of course, you want it both ways.

A government exists for the benefit of the governed, not the benefit of itself, nor of everyone else in the world. If you want to accuse the US government in acting in short-sighted ways in foreign relations (certainly), that's a legitimate discussion, a failure to act in the long-term best interest of the governed.

Get real. It's a nasty world out there. If all that ever happens to you is someone eavesdrops on your private conversation count yourself lucky.

"X is worse than Y, so you should just stop criticizing Y. Worse things exist! Get over it, whiner!" Not a particularly logical response to a real problem that impacts people's fundamental liberties. Or any problem, really. I'm not going to count myself "lucky" when a real problem like this exists.

And besides, I'm not sure you want to downplay the significance of the government being able to selectively oppress anyone who angers them with their massive amount of information. A police state would love this, and people who pretend that the government is full of perfect angels only inch us farther and farther away from being "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

With all the injustices in the world someone spying on me ranks about number 18,038,047. There's too much really bad shit going on for ranting over this crap.

Right. So let's just drop everything and tackle world hunger.

We can tackle more than one problem at once. Furthermore, ignoring actual problems and letting scumbags get away with their injustices just makes you part of the problem.

You're an idiot. This is a blatant violation of the highest law of the land, and our fundamental rights. They can use this information to harass anyone questions the status quo (like MLK, who was spied on) and find ways to destroy them. Yet, this obvious move towards a police state doesn't bother you. And don't say it does, because if it actually did, you wouldn't be trying so desperately to downplay the issue as if it's nothing.

The mass violation fundamental liberties and our constitution is one of the big

I didn't say I don't question authority. I said that on the list of crap they do wrong listening to my conversations was the least of my problems. There is a lot of crap that pisses me off more than that. Abusive and stupid taxes for one. That's far higher on my shit list.

In case you failed to notice, I actually did supply logical arguments to go along with my insult. There's absolutely nothing wrong with insulting your opponent. In fact, I'd say that it's you oversensitive princesses that are the problem.

As I said, you're an idiot. You have no respect the principles that this country is supposed to aspire to, its constitution, or freedom. If you're going to downplay this hugely important issue, then I see no reason for you to pretend that you even care a bit.

You're the moron. To play this issue as the be all and end all of importance. It's a problem, not tyranny itself. There are bigger problems, many of them. There is no guarantee of privacy in the US Constitution. If you want one get your congresscritter to attempt to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that, someone has already purchased him. There is a bigger problem in itself for one example. Campaign finance. How can we have a democracy when all our law makers are for sale to the highest bidde

You're the moron. To play this issue as the be all and end all of importance.

It's one of the biggest issues we face today. As I said, any police state would love to have these capabilities, and this just moves us significantly further in that direction.

There is no guarantee of privacy in the US Constitution.

You've finally revealed your true colors: Someone who doesn't understand the constitution, or care about it. Read the fourth amendment. It doesn't take a genius to realize the NSA's activities are a blatant violation of the spirit of the constitution, which is something we refer to time and time again as times change.

If you say, "Well, the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it!" then you've missed the entire point of the constitution, and the principles of this country. It definitely doesn't give the government the power to spy on nearly everyone's communications.

Get a grip.

No, you get a grip. You're setting up all these false dichotomies and pretending as if we have to ignore blatant violations of the constitution and our freedoms simply because you think that the mass violation of the highest law in the US and our individual liberties is no big deal, and that there are bigger things that are happening.

Multiple times now you've tried to downplay this significant issue, and at the same time, you pretend that you want to live in a free country. It does not seem that way.

They could just as easily collect the actual data. Why is the metadata any more private? Furthermore, metadata *is just data*; it can't be anything else.

They shouldn't be collecting a damn thing. We kill people based on "metadata." Metadata could have been used against the founding fathers, and to find Paul Revere. This mass surveillance is a tool for oppression, and nothing more. Metadata matters. [eff.org]

So while they're supposedly not listening in on everyone's calls, what they're doing is just as evil.

(that's where it starts to get sticky with the broad leeway a government can and will allow itself to monitor a conversation - aka a slippery slope)

Nope. The mere collection of this so-called "metadata" is a violation of the constitution and people's individual rights. That's where it gets sticky.

Saying "I don't agree with us doing something" on a comment to a poll on a website isn't exactly a large waste of resources. I don't think the NSA should be spying on foreign countries either; but the minute it took me to type all this up wasn't a minute taken away from me curing cancer.

You try to imply I love living under a police state, even though we don't have one. This because I think the monitoring of communications by the government is far from the worst thing they do. The simple fact is that of all the things they do, this is in fact not the worst or nearly the worst. Yes they don't have the right to do this kind of surveillance. Under the 10th Amendment, which no one really gives a shit about anymore probably close to 90% of what the government does is unconstitutional. That

You try to imply I love living under a police state, even though we don't have one.

I'm saying that if we allow things like this to go on, we'll move farther and farther in that direction. There is a difference.

My real problem is that you keep downplaying the issue, and act as if it's nothing. To people who think the government should follow the highest law of the land and people care about privacy, it's a huge issue. It might not be the absolute worst case scenario, but that doesn't mean it's not a huge issue.

I say again that the outrage against this would be better placed elsewhere on greater problems.

This level of outrage needs to be directed towards every single unconstitutional

You try to imply I love living under a police state, even though we don't have one.

That depends on your perspective. If you were one of the people who went out peacefully objecting to the way our society works in any of the 1% demonstrations recently and found yourself being pepper sprayed for no apparent reason with no recourse against the police officer that did it you might not be so sure.

There you go! That's another thing I find more objectionable than eavesdropping on my calls. It's still not evidence of a police state. Over zealous police have been with us for pretty much ever. It's a consequence of putting power in the hands of people not trained and/or suited for it. The right to demonstrate peacefully is essential to a free society and is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Get real. It's a nasty world out there. If all that ever happens to you is someone eavesdrops on your private conversation count yourself lucky. I don't much like it either but your reaction is way over the top. With all the injustices in the world someone spying on me ranks about number 18,038,047. There's too much really bad shit going on for ranting over this crap.

Except that the really bad shit happens after they eavesdropped on you. The whole eavesdropping is not self-serving but is done for the purpose of making bad shit happen.

If/when you are ever arrested on some wishy-washy bullshit charges, you can expect that the prosecutor is going to dig, dig, sift, and dig some more on all that eavesdropping to find "substantiating evidence".

Have you ever watched any Youtube videos, telling you how to talk to cops? Bottom line is, "don't talk to the cops". They will intentionally misconstrue the most innocent remarks to help them build a case against you. Common wisdom is, the moment the cop turns his lights on to pull you over, he has

The right to not have your private communications spied on is a fundamental right. Furthermore, had the British used such technology against the founding fathers, they very likely would've explicitly forbade it in the constitution, much like they did with numerous other tactics that were used against them. This is a blatant violation of people's fundamental liberties, and the spirit of the constitution. Don't pretend it's anything else, authoritarian.

I'm disapointed that you don't get the purpose of intelligence services. It's their job to spy on foreign countries, not on their own citizens.

So anything your nation does in your name to fuck over foreigners is fair play then is it just because that is their mandate?

The thing to recognise is that foreigners who object to this sort of thing often have very little they can do as a comeback to make it stop. They can't lobby their own government to do anything about it since their government is powerless in the face of the huge US military. So they strike back the only way they can, they attack the easy targets who give their government a mandate to

1. It's really sad that many Americans think they are the only ones that have rights.
2. There are international agreements about human rights that the USA did sign. It's really bad that people like you pay your taxes expecting your government to break these agreements and think that's their job.
3. It's a very Nazi position to think it's OK to do to others everything you don't want on yourself or your equals.
4. There is a big difference between spying foreign nations and spying on actual security threats. If there is a threat on a foreign nation, go spy those specific targets. If there is no threat to your security, don't do it for the sole purpose of disrespecting people's rights, laws, constitutions, sovereignty, etc. just because they're not Americans (isn't it a Security Agency?).

I keep telling people there are many decent Americans (my best friend is American so it's hard on me when people generalize) and that we can't treat them like they are all your type of people, but it's really hard to make that point when we see this kind of speech.

FYI, I'm from Brazil, a country that hasn't been in wars for 200 years, that states in its constitution that we'll not have nuclear weapons, that did suffer from an US implanted dictatorship and never did retaliate. Also a country that, just like the USA, did sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our people doesn't expect our government to disrespect other country's laws or people. That's not being awesome, it's just having morals and not being Nazi.

You misunderstand. When they discuss rights/violating rights in the US, they continually differentiate between US citizens and other citizens. Not because other citizens have no rights, but because The US government has no legal authority over those people. When debating US wiretapping and the legality of it, they can only argue about the effect on US Citizens, because US laws have legal control only over US citizens (technically)Think about it: there are laws against starving your own children. But there

Exactly. Obama runs the most transparent government in the history of mankind, and he said he stopped this. We know it to be true because of his transparency. The only people still whining about the NSA are Republicans too stupid to understand the truth.

I certainly don't consider myself a "scandal addict", and most of the manufactured "scandals" (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Solyndra, IRS/Tea Party, etc., etc.), are indeed just throwing something at the wall and hoping it sticks.

This is not the same. This is collection of massive amounts of data on citizens who are under no suspicion of wrongdoing, let alone enough to get a warrant. That needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed in a similar way as wiretapping, where a warrant based upon individualized evidence of wrongdoing is required and the data collection is done so as to minimize the collection of data not related to the purpose of the warrant.

So, you're right about the majority of the "scandals". But not this one. This one is a serious problem. It's not the fault of any given administration, but it needs to stop with this one. I wish people would drop the idiotic faux-scandals and concentrate on this.

The worst thing about it is that it's stupid and ineffective. Capturing everything and running it through filters is lazy and puts entirely too much faith in the technology. Old fashioned humint is hard but done properly is way more effective. The people actually up to bad stuff end up figuring out ways around the technology. Time to stop listenign to every single conversation in the world and focus on actually doing real spy work.

Broad wiretapping might not be as effective as wiretapping people you already are almost certain are guilty, but it's probably quite effective per dollar spent compared to other methods of investigation. Also, when you decide to investigate someone, you already have a pile of data on them, so the investigation can go quicker. Furthermore, this sort of thing causes coordination difficulties for criminals because they can't use communications technology.

How the hell is Fast & Furious not a scandal? They willingly supplied weapons to criminal organizations with the sole intention of using it as justification to place restrictions on the rights of Americans. Whether you're pro-Second Amendment or pro-Gun Control is irrelevant - they were willingly arming dangerous people and knew innocent people would die just so that they could push an agenda. No matter what your position is on guns, that's immoral and illegal.

Fast and Furious was a fuckup, to be sure. Those do happen. You learn from them and you go forward the wiser for it. If your standard for any organization is that they never make a mistake or poor decision, I'm afraid you're in for a lot of disappointment indeed.

Anti-taxation groups who are known for hiding political activities under a misclassification get extra tax scrutiny. I'd consider it shocking if they didn't take a good, hard look as compared to the standard screening.

Right now, the spotlight is shined on the NSA... but compared to other intel agencies, they are not the ones who are going to make you vanish in the middle of the night.

Perhaps not, but with a single false positive they could make my life a living hell.

I dont lie awake at night worrying about it; I'm not the type of guy intelligence people are interested in. I'd never hurt anybody. If I find an insect indoors I either leave him be or if he starts "bugging" me I'll make a paper shuttle to gently escort him outdoors and set him free.

But with the massive database the NSA has accrued, any analysis they do on it is going to generate many, many false positives. That's my real concern. Analysts are humans, humans make mistakes. Based on their assessment of WMD in Iraq and other failures being publically reported, they seem to be making a lot of them. So while I'm not exactly worried, I am concerned.

Also, it's not funny at all that "the public" ignores blatant violations of the constitution and people's individual liberties; it's sad. It shows that many people only pretend to care about the principles this country is supposed to aspire to, and in fact support or ignore policies that take us in the direction of a police state.

Anything I do on a network connected device is vulnerable to the NSA or other alphabet soup in some way. At the very least, the data is. As we have seen there is no real expectation of privacy; these guys are too deeply connected to everything that happens, they have too much data, and they sure as hell have enough smarts and computing power to decrypt whatever they want.

I still use cash when possible, when given the choice I use very long keys, anything important is encrypted, but to be realistic if "da gub'mint" wants to get me there's little I can do. Heck, unplugging entirely and living in an isolated cabin out in the far reaches of Alaska probably means I'm automatically labeled a terrorist which would draw even more attention. And if for some reason someone wants to create false records, who is to stop them? They will wave their "state secret" flag around and you won't even be able to question them.

So, realistically, there's not much one can do. Big Brother won. There's no way it will ever go away, either. Even if they say they will stop, or that they cannot defeat X, will you really believe them?

Yeah, maybe it's because I grew up around the beltway and knew plenty of nice folks who worked for the NSA. I'm not really worried about them.

Here are some things I've done to improve my security stance against things that I actually feel are more of a threat, though:

* Upgraded OpenSSL on my box, so the script kiddies don't get in.* Don't announce that we're going on vacation on Facebook or Twitter, and I don't post pics until I get back home.* Keep my important docs and firearms and backups in a fire safe

I've wondered about an ID system with a smart chip, except based around a certificate and trust model. For example, Alice's ID would have a cert (each cert has a different life span [1]) showing that she is over 21, has a valid driver's license, is a US citizen, is not a felon.

At the bar, the card gets swiped, the cert shows she is over 21, so is allowed in. No birthdate needed.

When going for a loan, there is a cert showing her FICO score is above a threshold, her income is above a certain amount, and she

Maybe only queries or certs that make sense as per laws, such as 13, 18, 21, 25, 65, etc. There wouldn't be a legal reason that a bar would need to know anything more than if they are legal, unless they were doing a retiree special (which the over 65 cert would cover.) The goal is to provide the minimal amount of info as needed for regulations.

You giving up is not the same thing as them winning. As the quote says, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.". Sure, it's a tiring fight that I have been in for probably longer than you. I can see why people give up after a while, but that is your choice and not their victory.

Basically, I was already in paranoia-mode, long before Snowden went public with his story (that stuff was partly known and published in James Bamford's books on the NSA, the rest of it was common knowledge among us sysadmins working in sensitive sectors). So, after careful evaluation of what has been published so far, I didn't see any reason to change anything security-wise.

Honestly, why do you think they would care about your data? Are you a journalist investigating the government or the banks? Are you running against Obama and want to make sure your campaign isn't spied on?

Honestly, why do you think they would care about your data? Are you a journalist investigating the government or the banks? Are you running against Obama and want to make sure your campaign isn't spied on?

Or perhaps you live in China, or Myanmar, or USA circa 2032, any other country where the government takes a decidedly 'proactive' approach towards managing the political behavior of the public?

There are some companies out there who don't want to see their trade secrets being spied upon, and sold / given to competitors. That's my primary concern: industrial espionage, done by state actors on behalf of their local companies. Everything that helps keep those state actors (and private spying groups that exist too) at bay, reinforces the security barrier. Even protecting the privacy of those who work at said companies, helps to make them less blackmailable, and less open to secret services "suggestion

To provide more cover for those who are more likely to be oppressed. This "They probably won't oppress me, so it doesn't matter." mindset is nothing short of selfish.

Besides that, you can't really predict when the government will decide to come after you. I'm sure the people who made those Twitter bomb jokes didn't think the government would see it, take them seriously, and then harass them, but they did.

I've been trying to reach you at you home phone of 549-555-8625 but it goes to voicemail. Your cell 215-555-8778 says it's disconnected. Please call me at 365-555-1244 so we can get your problem with your Social Security number, 949-83-7573, straightened out. OK?

.. and send an annotated copy of it all to your mom and to the employer you've been hoping to get a job with, if you don't fall in line with (insert privacy-invading-agency's name here)'s 'suggestions' on how ought to behave.

Just because you're not embarrassed by your porn habits doesn't mean they can't be used against you.

I mostly used Kubuntu and Xubuntu before this anyway, but I no longer trust MS to not have gov't backdoors built-in. Yes, I know nothing is 100%, but I'm more comfortable using an OS that's open-source over one that's not.

Not changed a bit. I have always tried to use non-trivial passwords, keep them different on all accounts that matter. Scan for malware and virus. On things that must be secure, they are not online. They might be computerized, just not online.

If you treat email as if it were a postcard that anyone can read, and you don't provide information on the interwebz that you wouldn't be willing to shout out on a street corner (SSN, credit card number, etc..) you're good. If you think any online security is actually secure against a dedicated attack, you're going to get pwned.

If you're less concerned about "security" and more about "freedom of speech", the same rules apply. In this day and age, if you say something (via postcard, on a streetcorner, on the

FYI, by using "dd" or an operating system's standard format functionality on an SD card, you will wipe away the Protected Area. To take best care of the card, it is recommended to use the SD Association's SD Formatter [sdcard.org] tool.

Are you certain that abuses are not being committed now? And that they have not been for quite some time?

It's not the law enforcement function that bothers me so much as the tendency for infomtion to leak two ways between government and corporate America.

I've worked for compnies that seemed to have all too easily accumulated file cabinets full of competitors' data. Particularly if they were foreign competitors (but many domestic as well). And it was well know that when Customs inspects the laptops of fore